Madras High Court

Saravanakumar vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 24 September, 2025

Author: M.Nirmal Kumar

Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar

                                                                                                  Crl.A.No.932 of 2022


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                         DATED : 24.09.2025

                                                                  CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

                                                         Crl.A.No.932 of 2022

                     Saravanakumar                                                           ... Appellant

                                                                      Vs.

                     State rep. by Inspector of Police,
                     All Women Police Station,
                     Dharapuram,
                     Tiruppur District.
                     Crime No.2 of 2020.                                                     ... Respondent


                     PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal

                     Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment passed by the learned Mahalir

                     Neethi Mandram, Tiruppur on 26.04.2022 in Special S.C.No.32 of 2020 and

                     allow this Appeal.


                                  For Appellant      :         Ms.Chithra Ponds for
                                                               Mr.C.S.Saravanan

                                  For Respondent     :         Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam,
                                                               Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                              JUDGMENT

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:34 am )

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant to set aside the

impugned judgment, dated 26.04.2022 in Special Sessions Case No.32 of

2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram,

Tiruppur (trial Court).

2.The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the

appellant are as follows:

● For offence under Section 5(l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the appellant is convicted and sentenced to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year. ● For offence under Section 376(3) IPC, the appellant is convicted and sentenced to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year.

● For offence under Section 506(i) IPC, the appellant is convicted and sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.

3.Gist of the case is that on the date of occurrence, the victim

girl/PW1 was a minor and her date of birth was 22.02.2005. PW2, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:34 am )

mother of the victim girl lodged a complaint (Ex.P2) to the respondent

Police stating that on 07.01.2020 at about 06.00 p.m, the victim girl/PW1,

who was studying 10th std in St.Aloysius Higher Secondary School,

Dharapuram, found frightened and in a sobbing state. When PW2 enquired,

the victim girl/PW1 informed that one month before, the appellant who is

from same village, had forcibly taken her to his house threatening if she does

not come, her parents will be done away, pushed the victim girl down,

removed her clothes and committed penetrative sexual assault. This he was

doing often. On 29.12.2019, when the victim girl was alone in her house at

about 12.00 noon, the appellant came to her house and forcibly dragged the

victim girl to his house and committed penetrative sexual assault. On

03.01.2020, the appellant took the victim girl in a bus by threat to Alangium

and then to a river bed area, an isolated place and committed penetrative

sexual assault. One Ms.Vedavalli, Sub Inspector of Police attached to the

respondent Police received the complaint (Ex.P2), registered FIR (Ex.P9) in

Crime No.2 of 2020 for offence under Sections 5(l) & 6 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506(ii) of IPC.

Thereafter, PW7/Inspector of Police took up investigation, visited the scene

of occurrence i.e., the house of the appellant and river bed area, prepared

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:34 am )

Observation Mahazar (Ex.P5), Rough Sketch (Ex.P10), examined the

witnesses, recorded their statements, sent the victim girl/PW1 to the

Government Hospital, Dharapuram for medical examination, thereafter,

produced the victim girl before the Magistrate, 164 Cr.P.C (Ex.P12)

recorded, arrested the appellant on 08.01.2020, recorded his confession

statement (Ex.P11) and sent the appellant to the Government Hospital,

Dharapuram for potency test. The Doctor/PW5 conducted potency test and

issued potency certificate (Ex.P8). The Doctor/PW6 examined the victim

girl/PW1 and issued medical report (Ex.P6) and Accident Register (Ex.P7)

confirming the victim girl is not virgin, hymen not intact. On collection of

medical records and other documents, PW7 altered the Sections to 5(l)(i)(r)

r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and

Sections 363, 376(3) & 506(2) of IPC and filed charge sheet before the trial

Court.

4.During trial, on the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW7 examined

and Exs.P1 to P14 marked. On the side of defence, no witness examined

and no document marked. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted

the appellant as stated above.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:34 am )

5.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant

and victim girl/PW1 belong to same locality with similar social status and

they were in love with each other. Since the parents of the victim girl not

willing for the marriage, they forced the victim girl and lodged a false

complaint (Ex.P2) as though the appellant committed penetrative sexual

assault on the victim girl. She further submitted that the complaint (Ex.P2)

was lodged with a delay of one month, for which, no plausible explanation

given. In this case, the victim girl/PW1 forced to give statement and to

depose against the appellant. Even in the complaint (Ex.P2), it is recorded

that the complaint (Ex.P2) was at the instance of one Kanagaraj, a

Communist Leader known to PW2's husband. PW2 admits in her evidence

that she is not aware what is written in the complaint (Ex.P2) and the

complaint (Ex.P2) was written by Kanagaraj and she only signed. In this

case, apart from the victim girl/PW1 and her mother/PW2, no independent

witness examined. Added to it, the father of the victim girl and the said

Kanagaraj, who scribed the complaint (Ex.P2), not examined as witnesses.

PW3 & PW4 are the witnesses for Observation Mahazar (Ex.P5), both

confirmed that they are not aware what is written in Ex.P5 and only

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:34 am )

signature obtained by the Police. The Doctor/PW6 examined the victim

girl/PW1 confirmed that there was no external injuries and no traces of

recent sexual intercourse and hymen found ruptured. PW6 in her evidence

admits that hymen could get disturbed due to other reasons.

6.The learned counsel further submitted that the victim girl/PW1 and

the appellant got married and they have a girl baby Thamaraiselvi born to

them on 02.02.2024. Both the victim girl/PW1 and the appellant are living

as husband and wife with the concurrence and blessings of both families. At

this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of

the Hon'ble Apex Court and submitted that in a similar situation the Apex

Court in “K.Dhandapani vs. State by the Inspector of Police reported in

2022 SCC Online SC 1056”, considered the subsequent events and observed

that the Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy

family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. Hence, she prayed for

setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.

7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent Police submitted that in this case PW1 is the victim girl and PW2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:34 am )

is the defacto complainant/mother of the victim girl, who lodged the

complaint (Ex.P2). On the date of occurrence, the victim girl was a minor,

her date of birth was 22.02.2005 and her birth certificate (Ex.P1) produced.

On the complaint (Ex.P2), the victim girl was enquired, confirmed about the

penetrative sexual assault committed by the appellant, thereafter, she was

produced before the Doctor/PW6 for medical examination. The

Doctor/PW6 confirmed that the victim girl was not virgin and hymen not

intact and gave medical report (Ex.P6) and Accident Register (Ex.P7).

Thereafter, PW7/Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence i.e.,

the house of the appellant and river bed area where the penetrative sexual

assault said to have taken place on 29.12.2019 and 03.01.2020, prepared

Observation Mahazar (Ex.P5) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P10). The victim girl

confirmed that she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the

appellant in her 164 statement (Ex.P12) as well as in her evidence before the

trial Court. The appellant was arrested, confessed and admitted his guilt.

The appellant produced before the Magistrate, remanded and thereafter, he

was produced for medical examination. PW5 is the Doctor examined the

appellant and gave potency certificate (Ex.P6). After examination of

witnesses and collection of documents, charge sheet filed before the trial

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:34 am )

Court. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW7 examined

and Exs.P1 to P14 marked. On the side of defence, no witness examined

and no document marked. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted

the appellant as stated above.

8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced the letter given

by the victim girl/PW1 confirming the marriage of the victim girl with the

appellant and also produced the birth certificate confirming the birth of girl

baby to them named Thamaraiselvi. He fairly submitted that the appellant

married the victim girl and they are living as husband and wife and they

have a girl baby born to them on 02.02.2024. It is also found that the

appellant is the only earning member who is supporting and taking care of

victim girl and the girl baby. In view of the subsequent development and

considering the welfare and future of the appellant and the victim girl to live

as husband and wife, this Court can decide the appeal.

9.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials, it

is seen that prior to lodging of complaint (Ex.P2), the appellant and the

victim girl were in love with each other. During their teenage relationship,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:34 am )

they had physical relationship. Later, a complaint (Ex.P2) lodged that the

appellant committed penetrative sexual assault and the victim girl/PW1 also

deposed against the appellant. But later, the difference of opinion is ironed

out and the victim girl and the appellant got married and living as husband

and wife and they have a girl baby named Thamaraiselvi born to them on

02.02.2024. Scanned reproduction of the letter given by the victim girl and

the birth certificate of Thamaraiselvi are as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:34 am )

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:34 am )

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:34 am )

10.Today, the appellant, victim girl and their girl baby Thamaraiselvi

appeared through the video conference. Mr.M.Sivakumar, Special Sub

Inspector of Police attached to the respondent Police Station confirmed their

identity. On interaction with them, both the appellant and victim girl

confirmed that they are living as husband and wife with their girl baby and

leading a happy matrimonial life. Further confirmed that the conviction of

the appellant would harm their matrimonial life more than serve justice.

From the birth certificate of the girl baby Thamaraiselvi, it is seen that the

victim girl is the mother and the appellant is the father.

11.The Hon'ble Apex Court in K.Dhandapani's case had considered

the subsequent events and observed that the Courts cannot shut its eyes to

the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant as well

as the victim girl. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that

allowing the appellant and the victim girl to lead a happy family life would

be the real justice. Further, the act of the appellant and the victim girl was

due to the change of hormones and due to their innocence not knowing the

seriousness and repercussion.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 11:42:34 am )

12.In view of the above, the conviction and sentence imposed on the